Isn't a review supposed to be about what the reviewer feels about the game?
If you're going to review a game without expressing your opinion on it, you'd better be off just saying "This is a videogame, you can play on your console." and it would make little to no difference.
Joel*
whoops
I did say that a review was practically a personal opinion.
Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would call The Last of Us a masterpiece... and I don't think it's really that much overhyped (notice: again personal opinion).
There is a reason there are different types of games in the market; someone likes CoD, someone likes Mario, and then again someone likes games like The Last of Us. There is dispersion between the people who like those games.
I'm not attempting to force people to praise it to heavens, if you don't think it's a masterpiece, then it isn't. Only times when I have to disagree are when people claim it is bad/mediocre. If they claim the game to be at least good, I am alright with that.
And no, I don't think you thought it was bad game or something like that. I just wanted to say my way of view about it.
You guys just love to overly criticize an excellent game do you?? not playing and just watching a "Lets play last of us". pretty pathetic. for me, this looks like an attempt to pull down the score and make it look like bad for the gamers to see. nice try though
I think the issue is Tom is the only person who reviews. On a website like IGN, they let reviewers who like the genre review the games. I happen to listen to podcast beyond on IGN. Colin Moriarty hated a lot of games Greg reviewed high. For instance, Colin has said multiple times that he didn't like Metal Gear Solid 4, he thought it was a bad game.
I don't like every game. If I was the only reviewer on a website, I would give games like The Last of Us a 9-10 range, and Skyrim a 5/10 (I don't like Elder Scrolls games). I also think GTA is overrated, so I would give GTA 4 a 6/10. A lot of people think people pay off IGN for good reviews, I don't think it's the case. I just think reviewers play the genre they like. And if Tom doesn't care for a certain genre, or gameplay style, his review is going to reflect that.
I disagree with Tom's review.. I thought The Last of Us was a masterpiece.
Agreed. Well said.
this game is flat out BLAND 6/10 at best, just beat it....meh...
awful graphics, sloppy gunplay, boring slogs through sub-hd terrain with jaggies everywhere
console games look absolute rubbish, half life 2 from 2004 destroys this game in every possible way
Look out, we got a PC elitist here.
Looking at your comment history, you wrote a similar comment saying the game deserved a 6/10 at best. So you just beat it recently, and you already made a judgment that it's a 6/10 game 1 month ago?
the last of us is a great game, but it is not 10/10. it is as simple as that. i think gamespot did a great job with their review, kept it real and gave a fair score. i think the game is 8.5/10, which is great. but far from perfect.
What an asshole!
Well, it depends. If you experience glitches like some have reported to (game-breaking, worlds not loading), of course it will not get 10/10. But no game is perfect, either.
10/10 scores are (in my opinion) for games that have so many good sides that you do not think of the bad sides while playing. The Last of Us was such game, for me. GTA IV/SA got perfect scores on places too, yet they have a lot of glitches - but you didn't complain about them because GTA is pretty much for fun roaming around.
Uncharted 2 got perfect scores all around, and it has glitches. What I am getting at is that no game is perfect, but TLoU gets quite close, even with the glitches/gameplay problems. If you come and say it doesn't deserve 10/10 for other reasons, I guess you just don't like the genre.
WTF DID U PLAY TALK ABOUT PC GUY AL THE WAY
never give explanations to an ignorant male airhead it goes in one ear comes out the other and the facial expression is like DUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH
I know I am really late on this, but I am playing it now and I freaking love the game, sure there are few minor issues here and there, but they barely take anything away from the experience. I have 20 hours of gameplay on Highest Difficulty (keep in mind the Super High difficulty is still locked until I finish the game) under my belt with only 65% of the game completed. I hate the reviews that say you can finish the game in 10 hours. Yes I could do it, but I wouldn't be playing it but rather sprinting through it, and that is not how I play my games. I haven't even touched the Multiplayer. I agree with people that praised this game, which in my opinion is yet another piece of art delivered by Naughty Dog. Everyone is entitle to their opinion, just like the author of this review, but idea is to be objective not subjective. Yes you are suppose to tell us how it felt to you but the score shouldn't be based on how you personally feel but rather how will Game Players feel after they finished the game.
i don't like several things. the game is too linear and the puzzles are very repetitive. there is no sense of fear for me, just a checkpoint reload and you're good to go. i was hoping the game is scarrier. i also wanted to see more variety in the infected, there are only three types... that's why the game is not 10/10 for me. the story telling is amazing, the environment looks very good, i actually like the gun play, the crafting is ok too. i was hooked, enjoyed it a lot, but thought it could be better. If it had the scare factor of the 1st Dead Space it would have been amazing.
I don't consider it to even try to have that. Sure, it's genre is "survival horror", but the main point isn't in the "horror", but the emphasis is instead on the word "survival."
There do exist parts that are scary (hotel basement), though, but I was satisfied with the amount of scariness, after all, it's just one emotion and the game can break apart all your other emotions, too.
If there had been more scary stuff, people (that currently dislike it) would have disliked it for being a Dead Space clone.
"Being credible or popular is not the same as being popular." First of all, being popular IS the same as being popular. How redundant. Second of all, I was an English major, so yeah, pretty sure that I know the definitions for popular and credible, but I was wondering if Merriam-Webster had changed them, so thanks for the update. The fact that your argument includes a statement about getting important parts of stories from YouTube videos doesn't make you sound very "credible", either.
I have been gaming for almost 30 years, so I have the chops to back up what I'm saying. I play all kinds of different games, including the ones on your Top 5 list or whatever the hell that was supposed to be. Don't preach to me, because you have nothing of value to teach.
That's the most arrogant thing I've ever read. Who the fuck are you to say who is credible? I'm sure your extensive time on the Internet is your credibility, huh? You really know what you're talking about, right? Get the fuck outta there, douche. Just because you don't agree with the score doesn't make that publication any less credible. Get over yourself.